Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen

The present study examined two common mechanisms that are used to explain why reading on an electronic screen versus paper result in different reading outcomes: The Cognitive Map Mechanism and the Medium Materiality Mechanism. A laboratory experiment (N=45), was conducted using a three-group comparison design (paper book vs. digital equivalent vs. digital disrupted view). Our hypotheses that were based on the cognitive map mechanism were largely supported. On the other hand, our hypotheses following the medium materiality mechanism were not sufficiently evidenced. Specifically, our results showed that the paper book was similar to its digital equivalent, and both were better than the digital disrupted view in terms of reading comprehension, feelings of fatigue, and psychological immersion. The findings implied that it is not the materiality of the presentation medium that influences reading outcomes, rather it is the extent to which the text presentation facilitates, or impedes, the reader's ability to construct a cognitive map that influences the reading process. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. We tested the difference between reading on an electronic screen versus paper.Our findings supported the cognitive map mechanism.Our findings failed to show evidence for the medium materiality mechanism.Readers' ability to construct a cognitive map of text affected reading outcomes.

[1]  Victor Nell.  Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure , 1988 .

[2]  Jan Noyes,et al.  VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce , 2003 .

[3]  Rosemary J. Stevenson,et al.  Effects of Text Structure and Prior Knowledge of the Learner on Navigation in Hypertext , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading From Paper Versus Reading From Screen , 1988, Comput. J..

[5]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience , 2011, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Jefferson M. Koonce,et al.  Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading , 2001 .

[7]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. , 1992 .

[8]  J. D. Gould,et al.  Doing the Same Work with Hard Copy and with Cathode-Ray Tube (CRT) Computer Terminals , 1984 .

[9]  Liang-Yi Li,et al.  Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Ana-Paula Correia,et al.  Efficacy of a map on search, orientation and access behaviour in a hypermedia system , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[11]  James J. DiCarlo,et al.  How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition? , 2012, Neuron.

[12]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Effects of Display Resolution on Visual Performance , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Yvonne Kammerer,et al.  Pupil Dilation and EEG Alpha Frequency Band Power Reveal Load on Executive Functions for Link-Selection Processes during Text Reading , 2015, PloS one.

[14]  Cecil D. Mercer,et al.  Teaching students with learning problems , 1981 .

[15]  Nicholas Chen,et al.  Navigation techniques for dual-display e-book readers , 2008, CHI.

[16]  Jennifer Little Kegler,et al.  E‐readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms? , 2013 .

[17]  Sheue-Ling Hwang,et al.  Effects of anti-glare surface treatment, ambient illumination and bending curvature on legibility and visual fatigue of electronic papers , 2008, Displays.

[18]  Hao Chen,et al.  Computer Vision Syndrome: A widely spreading but largely unknown epidemic among computer users , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Laura M. Leventhal,et al.  Sleuthing in HyperHolmes : aTM an evaluation of using hypertext vs. a book to answer questions , 1993, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[20]  M. Pedrotti,et al.  E-Readers and Visual Fatigue , 2013, PloS one.

[21]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Mapping the mind: Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization , 1994 .

[22]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension , 2013 .

[23]  Cliff McKnight,et al.  Navigation in Hypertext: Structural Cues and Mental Maps , 1989, UK Hypertext.

[24]  Margaret Mackey,et al.  Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text , 2002 .

[25]  Susanne Askwall,et al.  Computer Supported Reading vs Reading Text on Paper: A Comparison of Two Reading Situations , 1985, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[26]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature , 1992 .

[27]  Annie Piolat,et al.  Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  Hak Joon Kim,et al.  Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance , 2013 .

[29]  Sonya Symons,et al.  Computerized Presentation of Text: Effects on Children’s Reading of Informational Material , 2006 .

[30]  M. Julee Tanner,et al.  Digital vs. Print: Reading Comprehension and the Future of the Book , 2014 .

[31]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents , 1997, CHI.

[32]  Carol Bergfeld,et al.  Reading text from computer screens , 1987, CSUR.

[33]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  Nigel Bevan.  Is there an optimum speed for presenting text on a VDU , 1981 .

[35]  Panayiotis Zaphiris,et al.  Reading Online or on Paper: Which is Faster? , 2001 .

[36]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey , 1987, Computer.

[37]  E. Conlon,et al.  The reading rate and comprehension of adults with impaired reading skills or visual discomfort , 2011 .

[38]  Charlotte P. Lee,et al.  The imposition and superimposition of digital reading technology: the academic potential of e-readers , 2011, CHI.

[39]  Dennis Shasha,et al.  Information Search with Dynamic Text vs Paper Text: An Empirical Comparison , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[40]  Aaron R. Seitz,et al.  Benefits of multisensory learning , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Daniela Zambarbieri,et al.  Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books , 2012, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[42]  Kerstin Severinson Eklundh.  Problems in Achieving a Global Perspective of the Text in Computer-based Writing , 1992 .

[43]  Erik Wästlund,et al.  Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[44]  Susan M. Belmore,et al.  Reading computer-presented text , 1985 .

[45]  Wilfred J. Hansen,et al.  Reading and writing with computers: a framework for explaining differences in performance , 1988, CACM.

[46]  V Barnes,et al.  Reading Is Slower from CRT Displays than from Paper: Attempts to Isolate a Single-Variable Explanation , 1987, Human factors.

[47]  Karen M. Zabrucky,et al.  Adult age differences in comprehension and memory for computer-displayed and printed text , 1995 .

[48]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. , 2001 .

[49]  D. Schacter,et al.  The Evolution of Multiple Memory Systems , 1987 .

[50]  E. Rothkopf.  Incidental memory for location of information in text , 1971 .

[51]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  The emergence of the contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[52]  William C. Treurniet,et al.  Extended Reading of Continuous Text on Television Screens , 1982 .

[53]  Paul Muter,et al.  Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: the paperless office revisited? , 1991 .

[54]  Jane Oakhill,et al.  Why Are Poor Comprehenders Inefficient Searchers? An Investigation into the Effects of Text Representation and Spatial Memory on the Ability To Locate Information in Text. , 2000 .

[55]  Fabio Crestani,et al.  User Centered Evaluation of an Automatically Constructed Hyper-TextBook , 2001 .

[56]  B. Schlaggar,et al.  Book Review Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain By Maryanne Wolf. 308 pp., illustrated. New York, Harper, 2007. $25.95. 978-0-06-018639-5 , 2008 .

[57]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[58]  Erik Wästlund,et al.  The effect of page layout on mental workload: A dual-task experiment , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[59]  Jo-Anne LeFevre,et al.  Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[60]  J D Gould,et al.  Does Visual Angle of a Line of Characters Affect Reading Speed? , 1986, Human factors.

[61]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures during reading , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  A. Lickorish,et al.  Proof-reading texts on screen and paper , 1983 .

[63]  J. J. Gibson.  The theory of affordances , 1977 .

[64]  Thierry Olive,et al.  Memory for words location in writing , 2009, Psychological research.

[65]  Tim Koch,et al.  Review Paper: A critical review of the present and future prospects for electronic paper , 2011 .

[66]  Guy Merchant.  Writing the future in the digital age , 2007 .

[67]  W. Cushman.  Reading from Microfiche, a VDT, and the Printed Page: Subjective Fatigue and Performance , 1986, Human factors.

[68]  Elizabeth A. Myers,et al.  Impact of Presentation Mode on Recall of Written Text and Numerical Information: Hard Copy versus Electronic , 2010 .

[69]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Realistic electronic books , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[70]  Keith M. Kendrick,et al.  Both Lexical and Non-Lexical Characters Are Processed during Saccadic Eye Movements , 2012, PloS one.

[71]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[72]  Harold Henke,et al.  Are electrons better than papyrus? (or can Adobe Acrobat reader files replace hardcopy?) , 1998, SIGDOC '98.

[73]  Jun Xiao,et al.  PageSpark: an E-magazine reader with enhanced reading experiences on handheld devices , 2011, EICS '11.

[74]  P. Barker,et al.  Human-computer interface design for electronic books , 1994 .

[75]  A. Kennedy,et al.  The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading , 2004 .

[76]  B. G. Pearce.  Health Hazards of VDTs , 1984 .

[77]  Forbes Gibb,et al.  From the Visual Book to the WEB Book: The Importance of Good Design , 2000, ECDL.

[78]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[79]  Hsiu-Mei Huang,et al.  Do print and Web surveys provide the same results? , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[80]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[81]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking Evidence from the Reading of Books and Digital Media , 2013, PloS one.

[82]  Nancy Murphy,et al.  A Multisensory vs. Conventional Approach to Teaching Spelling. , 1997 .

[83]  Ian D. Benest.  A Hypertext System with Controlled Hype , 1989, UK Hypertext.

[84]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet , 2014 .

[85]  Wei Peng,et al.  Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players' immersion tendencies on game experience , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[86]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and representations , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[87]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion , 2008 .

[88]  Nathaniel Stone.  The e-reader industry: Replacing the book or enhancing the reader experience? , 2008 .